Pit Bulls

hah.

i dont think it matters really.

they need a wake up call.

badly..

I like animals too,
but I don 't have them any more because I travel a lot.

I agree that banning a breed isn't necessarily the solution and banning pools is not the solution, however, if you can do something to save just one child it is worth it so the stats on that a child would be more likely to be killed by abc isn't a reason to not do something.

There are many safety rules around pools to prevent children from drowning - if people followed these rules then perhaps the numbers would be lower. Follow the rules and you get a solution to prevent deaths. Same with pit bulls - there is obviously a problem with pit bulls and children (more likely the owners are the problem) - so you need to come up with viable solution. More likely rules around breeds that have such a history - like mentioned it seems how the dogs attack and the fact that other dogs do not. How do you prevent such attacks? Limit such animals/rules around ownership? Like pool safety, there appears to be likely to have rules around dog ownership.

My "irrational fear" believes that 15 out of 19 is 79% ... so stick that nonsense in your "used logic" and spin.


That would be fine if pit bulls only attacked on their owners. However, they tend to attack innocent children, including children of parents who do not want their children near them.

The idea that if you could save one life it is worth it cover many sins sometimes sadly it is not indeed worth it to place some program into place with the idea it might save or might not save one life. The problem with rules for dog ownership is how are you going to enforce such rules to start with and is the efforts really worth the benefits?

An interesting footnote on the one life argument/logic is the effort to stop the removing of the 55 mph nation wide limit after the first oil crisis had pass was that if we did so we would end up increasing the death rate in car accidents by thousands a year. The people as a whole was more then willing to assume that risk it would seem.

In any case in my location there is an outright ban on Pitt Bulls ownership with some high fines however that had not seem to my own personal knowledge to stop anyone I know from having them and as I feel such a ban is both an outrageous and stupid law I myself would have no problem in owning a Pit Bulls if the occurrence to do so would come up. I would pick a vet that feel the same way and list the dog as a plain boxer.

Yes sadly as long as we have large breeds of dogs around us including Pitt Bulls some number of humans including children will be kill every year and a larger number will be harm every year.

Now the question come down to is the joy and benefits of having dogs in our lives as a society worth the price of those deaths and my answer is hell yes.

To me the benefits of having the companionship of dogs is far greater then the benefits of having back yards pools and the cost in term of lost lives for having dogs is also far less by a factor of ten or so.

The whole risk/benefits equation when it come to Pitt Bulls had been driven way out of any sane reason.

Oh I would support laws that try to stop having dogs chain outside and all dogs that are fixed are far less of a danger by the studies I had seen so fixing dogs should be promoted more and other steps could be done of that nature but we are still going to have deaths of humans every year because of dogs attacks.

Sadly as long as we allow pools we will have deaths from drowning of children no matter how safe we try to make them and as long as we have large dogs of any breed there will be children kill by them.

The difference is that a child can choose whether or not to go near a swimming pool. The parent can calculate whether the risk is acceptable. Neither the child nor the parent can choose whether or not the child will be randomly and unexpectedly attacked by a pit bull.

Good try Foxfyre but it does not hold water as no one force anyone to have a Pitt Bull in their homes any more then a back yard pool and I had not seen too many cases reported where a Pitt Bull broke into a home and attack a child had you?

Young children wandering around unsupervised had gone into other people yards and been attack by a evil Pit Bull chain in those yards just as children had wander into the back yards of other people homes and drown in pools.

Yes there are a few cases of dogs roaming free attacking children but it is a small percent of the total and once more the children that end up dead from such attacks are normally very young IE a few years old so what the hell are they doing going anywhere without adults supervision Foxfyre?

Young Children are in far more danger of harm without adult supervision from other risks such as evil strangers of the human kind, traffic, and back yard pools to name just a few risks.

Interesting numbers in many way the figures I had does not show a 80 percent number but let go with your figures 19 deaths in 3 and a half year in a country with 300 millions people and millions of evil Pitt Bulls and 5o millions or so of other large dogs!

My lord what a hell of a death rate compare to almost anything else you can name including death by eating or being around peanuts, bee string, lighting bolts, bath tube drowning, household electric shock and on and on and on............

Sadly however the death rate from dog attacks is higher and been just below 30 a year for decades so your numbers are worthless along with your 80 Pitt Bull percent claim.

By the way are you driving to ban back yard pools as children without them in their own back yard had drown by wandering into someone else back yard. and we can not allow peanuts to be sold or used in any food as children had die from them every year an don and on and on......

Is there any other thing you would wish us to ban other then Pitt Bulls and if not why not as you seem to wish to love in a zero risk universe?

Oh Foxfyre my mother had a small dog door so her small dog could go out into her fence off yard and do his business without her needing to get up as she was in her middle 80s at the time.

So I was visiting her when this child who could hardly walk had open the fence and then cheerfully crawl into her home by way of the small dog door.

Now my question to you if we had have a friend Pitt Bull visiting us at the time and instead of being a lover was the evil child attack monster you seem to think all Pitt Bulls are and he had kill this child before we could react who damn fault would it had been?

Is it my mother or my duty to keep her home child safe in all regards in case some parent is not watching his/her child and that child find a way into her home?

Oh when we took the kid back to his parents and complain to them that they was not watching the child they could had care less.

The world is full of dangers and it is up to the parents to keep an eye on their children not the world duty to removed all low level dangers from the world which in any case can not be done.

Perhaps you could find any statement I have made anywhere on this thread or anywhere else that even remotely suggested that I think all pit bulls are evil attack monsters. You would strengthen your argument considerably if you didn't assign unsupportable motives, thoughts, or statements to those you debate.

The responsibility of parents is irrelevant in the point being made here. Some parents are irresponsible to the point that they do put their children irresponsibly into harm's way. But the argument being made is to protect children against needless dangers that the most responsible parent should not have to predict or foresee. Like leaded paint or contaminated forumla. An unprovoked, unexpected attack by a pit bull is something we simply do not need to subject children to.

The issue is not whether most pit bulls are well behaved and lovable dogs. Most are.

The issue is the propensity of pit bulls to unexpectedly visciously attack without any obvious provocation. We have shown that the instance of pit bulls doing that is statistically significantly higher than with other breeds of dogs. When even a very small number of automobiles or tires or computer laptop batteries or toaster ovens or food items malfunction creating an unacceptable danger to the users, all such items are recalled to be repaired or replaced. If the defect cannot be remedied, all such products are taken off the market.

It is time to recall the pitbull breed and not continue to breed and distribute a product that has proved to contain possible unacceptable dangerous defects.

Nonsense Foxfrye once more the reason that Pitt Bulls had a higher then normal attack liklihood had not been shown to have anything too do with the breed and if you control for the dogs that are mistreated and train to be attack dogs and fighting dogs or chain out all day long I have seen no evidence that they would then have a higher rate of attack then any other breed of large dogs.

German Shepherd however does have a higher attack rate then other breeds so are we going to ban them ?

Ban Pitt Bulls and enforce that ban somehow and the people who fight dogs and used them as attack dogs will turn to another breed such as Chow Chows.

In any case the numbers of attacks by all breeds are so small given that there are a 100 million dogs living with us 24/7 it is once more a non issue in any logical world view.

When you are done with banning back yard pools and lowing the speed limit to 30 MPH or some such figure then come and talk to me about dealing with a risk that is so small you are far more likely to be hit by a lighting bolt out of a clear sky then to be attack by a Pitt Bull when taking a walk.

There is substantial statistical evidence that Pit Bulls do have a higher attack rate than most breeds, and, when they do attack, a higher likelihood of inflicting serious injury, maiming, or death than any other breed. This is posted in this thread and available if you are interested.

The difference between a German Shepherd and a Pit Bull is roughly the difference between a double guage shotgun and a fully automatic AK47. Both can be used to inflict bodily harm, but one is more likely to inflict far more bodily harm in a short period than is the other.

Using your logic, if you make it illegal to commit armed robbery, you'll just increase the incidents of drug trafficking or counterfeiting. Or perhaps we should make it illegal to do all of that?

Making intentional dog fighting illegal is a good idea no matter what breeds are used and that is a separate issue from whether the breeding and distribution of pit bulls should be illegal along with all other dangerous animals that have demonstrated a high degree of unpredictablility.

When even a very small number of automobiles or tires or computer laptop batteries or toaster ovens or food items malfunction creating an unacceptable danger to the users, all such items are recalled to be repaired or replaced. If the defect cannot be remedied, all such products are taken off the market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh one other comment we are not talking about a toaster we are talking about important family members in millions of homes that you wish to seize and kill in the name of reducing the risk that is so small that there are hundreds of greater risks in the average home then the family dog even if that dog happen to be a Pitt Bull.

If as a child someone would had seize the dog I sleep with every night to kill it that would had cause scars that would had been deeper then any dog bit.

I realize that Fox will never see this post because she has me on ignore.. But.....


It's quite funny to see Fox arguing for the government interference with toasters and pit bulls when she argues that Conservatives like her are all for the government getting out of people's lives.

Okay Bill. You've obviously not read the thread since you continue to accuse me of saying or wanting to do things that are 100% opposite or contradictory to what I have said. I'm giving you benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't be so dishonest if you had read the thread.

But do have a great day.

A list of deaths from dog bites
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#homicides

A lot of pits on the list but also a lot of Rotweillers too.


Some more stats over a longer time
http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm
about 16% were pits bulls.

Interesting little bit

Welcome to disagreements with Foxfyre Bill. She will say something. You can repeat it back to her word for word and she will claim you don't understand her meaning and are twisting her words. She will call you dishonest for doing so.

Your logic (and Tico's for applauding it) is quite faulty JLNobody.

1) We do not ban all humans because of serial killers.

2) We do put down dogs who have killed humans (along with prosecute the owners in many cases).

Nobody here is saying that nothing should be done about dogs that kill. The opposition is to banning whole breeds. Unless you think we should ban humans (or at least white males, they are disproportionately represented in serial homicide much like pit bulls are in dog attacks) your comparison to serial killers makes no sense at all because nobody is arguing against addressing specific instances of dog attacks and we already do that, they are arguing against banning whole breeds based on the attacks.

Incidentally, you are several times more likely to die from lightning than a pit bull. Banning the breed based on those kinds of statistics is absurd.

Everybody seems focused on the few deaths comparatively to the population.

And forgetting the 800 000 people that need medical assistance for dog bites every year in the US (out of almost 5 million bites)..